Appeal 2007-0586
Application 10/387,812
Claims 4, 5, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Morrison in view of Laufer and further in view of Gough.
Claims 8-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Morrison and Laufer and further in view of Levine.
Claims 11-14, 16, 17, 20, 21, 25, and 26 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Morrison and Laufer and further in view
of Lorentzen.
Claims 18, 19, and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Morrison, Laufer, and Lorentzen and further in view of
Gough.
Claims 22-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Morrison, Laufer, Lorentzen, and Levine.
ISSUE
Appellant’s sole argument is that the teachings of Morrison and
Laufer would not have rendered the subject matter of independent claim 1
prima facie obvious, inasmuch as Laufer is from a non-analogous art.
Therefore, the sole issue on appeal for our consideration is whether
the Examiner has established the prima facie obviousness of claim 1 by a
preponderance of the evidence.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013